Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 411

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 84 of the 84 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Promotion of physical activity interventions for community dwelling older adults: A systematic review of reviews

Open access
Zubala, Ania, MacGillivray, Stephen, Frost, Helen, Kroll, Thilo, Skelton, Dawn A., Gavine, Anna, Gray, Nicola M., Toma, Madalina, Morris, Jacqui·2017·PLOS ONE

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: While there is strong evidence that regular participation in physical activity (PA) brings numerous health benefits to older adults, and interventions to effectively promote PA are being developed and tested, the characteristics and components of the most effective interventions remain unclear. This systematically conducted review of systematic reviews evaluated the effects and characteristics of PA promotion interventions aimed at community dwelling people over 50 years old. METHODS: Major databases were searched for reviews from January 1990 to May 2015. TIDieR guidelines aided data extraction and the ROBIS tool was used to assess the risk of bias. Primary outcomes were objective and self-reported levels of PA. Indicators of psychological wellbeing and participation rates were secondary outcomes. RESULTS: Of 1284 records identified, 19 reviews met inclusion criteria and eight included meta-analyses. Interventions typically incorporated behaviour change techniques (BCTs) and were delivered as face-to-face, remote, group, individual or as combined interventions. Despite their heterogeneity, interventions often resulted in sustained improvements in PA over the study period, typically at 12 months, and led to improvements in general wellbeing. However, ways to ensure effective maintenance beyond one year are unclear. Certain intervention components were more clearly associated with positive effects (e.g. tailoring promotion strategy with combination of cognitive and behavioural elements, low to moderate intensity activity recommended). We found no evidence that certain other intervention characteristics were superior in achieving positive outcomes (e.g. mode of delivery, setting, professional background of the intervention provider, type of PA recommended). CONCLUSION: The evidence suggests that interventions to promote PA among older adults are generally effective but there is uncertainty around the most beneficial intervention components. There are indications that purely cognitive strategies and BCTs might be less suitable for older adults than motivators more meaningful to them, including social and environmental support, and enjoyment coming from being physically active. A whole system-oriented approach is required that is tailored to meet the needs of older adults and aligned with social, individual and environmental factors.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0180902

Cites

84 of 84 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 84 references

Cited by

See all 411

Metadata

Authors
Zubala, A., MacGillivray, S., Frost, H., Kroll, T., Skelton, D. A., Gavine, A., Gray, N. M., Toma, M., & Morris, J.
Venue
PLOS ONE
Published
2017-07-10
Volume
12
Issue
7
Pages
e0180902
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2735264099
Cited by
411
References
84
FWCI
5.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Promotion of physical activity interventions for community dwelling older adults: A systematic review of reviews. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1371/journal.pone.0180902
The paper
Zubala, A., MacGillivray, S., Frost, H., Kroll, T., Skelton, D. A., Gavine, A., Gray, N. M., Toma, M., & Morris, J. (2017). Promotion of physical activity interventions for community dwelling older adults: A systematic review of reviews. PLOS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0180902

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.